ing petitioner from the service, are hereby AFFIRMED.

No
costs.
SO ORDERED.
Tinga,** Chico-Nazario (Actg. Chairperson), Velasco,
Jr.** and Reyes, JJ., concur.
Petition dismissed.
Notes.In administrative proceedings, the complainant
bears the onus of establishing, by substantial evidence, the
averments in the complaint; complainants cannot rely on
mere conjectures and suppositions without any
substantiation. (Sarmiento vs. Leonardo, 497 SCRA 139
[2006])
Public office is a public trust. (Dela Pea vs. Sia, 493
SCRA 8 [2006])
o0o

G.R. No. 154464.September 11, 2008.*

FERDINAND A. CRUZ, 332 Edang St., Pasay City,

petitioner, vs. JUDGE PRISCILLA MIJARES, Presiding
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City, Metro
Manila, public respondent. BENJAMIN MINA, JR., 332
Edang St., Pasay City, private respondent.
Courts; Jurisdiction; A becoming regard of the judicial
hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for the issuance of
extraordinary writs against the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) should
be filed with the Court of Appeals.This Courts jurisdiction to
issue writs of

_______________
** Designated additional members in lieu of Associate Justices Consuelo
Ynares-Santiago and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez per Special Order No. 517
dated August 27, 2008.* THIRD DIVISION.

502

502

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Mijares

certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction is not exclusive; it

has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of
Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to be
taken as an absolute, unrestrained freedom to choose the court
where the application therefor will be directed. A becoming regard
of the judicial hierarchy most certainly indicates that petitions for
the issuance of extraordinary writs against the RTCs should be filed
with the Court of Appeals. The hierarchy of courts is determinative
of the appropriate forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs;
and only in exceptional cases and for compelling reasons, or if
warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed, may this Court
take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.
Pleadings and Practice; Considering that a party personally
conducting his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence
and procedure as those qualified to practice law, petitioner, not being
a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the snares and hazards
of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his own
instance, can personally conduct the litigation of Civil Case No. 010410.From the clear language of this provision of the Rules, it will
have to be conceded that the contention of the petitioner has merit.
It recognizes the right of an individual to represent himself in any
case to which he is a party. The Rules state that a party may
conduct his litigation personally or with the aid of an attorney, and
that his appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized
member of the Bar. The individual litigant may personally do
everything in the course of proceedings from commencement to the
termination of the litigation. Considering that a party personally
conducting his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence
and procedure as those qualified to practice law, petitioner, not
being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the snares and
hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz as plaintiff, at his
own instance, can personally conduct the litigation of Civil Case No.
01-0410. He would then be acting not as a counsel or lawyer, but as
a party exercising his right to represent himself.
Same; A party litigant in a civil case, who insists that he can,
without a lawyers assistance, effectively undertake the successful
pursuit of his claim, may be given the chance to do so.The case at

bar involves a civil case, with the petitioner as plaintiff therein. The
solicitous concern that the Constitution accords the accused in a
criminal prosecution obviously does not obtain in a civil case. Thus,
a
503

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

503

Cruz vs. Mijares

party litigant in a civil case, who insists that he can, without a
lawyers assistance, effectively undertake the successful pursuit of
his claim, may be given the chance to do so. In this case, petitioner
alleges that he is a law student and impliedly asserts that he has
the competence to litigate the case himself. Evidently, he is aware of
the perils incident to this decision.
Same; It was clarified in Bar Matter 730, that by virtue of
Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may appear as an agent or a
friend of a party litigant, without need of the supervision of a lawyer,
before inferior courts.It was subsequently clarified in Bar Matter
730, that by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student may
appear as an agent or a friend of a party litigant, without need of
the supervision of a lawyer, before inferior courts. Here, we have a
law student who, as party litigant, wishes to represent himself in
court. We should grant his wish.
Administrative Law; Judges; Disqualification and Inhibition of
Judges; Absent clear and convincing proof of grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the judge, this Court will rule in favor of the
presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.In a
Motion for Inhibition, the movant must prove the ground for bias
and prejudice by clear and convincing evidence to disqualify a judge
from participating in a particular trial, as voluntary inhibition is
primarily a matter of conscience and addressed to the sound
discretion of the judge. The decision on whether she should inhibit
herself must be based on her rational and logical assessment of the
circumstances prevailing in the case before her. Absent clear and
convincing proof of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the
judge, this Court will rule in favor of the presumption that official
duty has been regularly performed.

SPECIAL CIVIL ACTION in the Supreme

Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Court.

NACHURA,J.:
This is a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition and
Mandamus, with prayer for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
It was directly
504

504

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Mijares

filed with this Court assailing the Resolutions dated May

10, 20021 and July 31, 20022 of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Branch 108, Pasay City, which denied the
appearance of the plaintiff Ferdinand A. Cruz, herein
petitioner, as party litigant, and the refusal of the public
respondent, Judge Priscilla Mijares, to voluntarily inhibit
herself from trying the case. No writ of preliminary
injunction was issued by this Court.
The antecedents:
On March 5, 2002, Ferdinand A. Cruz (petitioner)
sought permission to enter his appearance for and on his
behalf, before the RTC, Branch 108, Pasay City, as the
plaintiff in Civil Case No. 01-0410, for Abatement of
Nuisance. Petitioner, a fourth year law student, anchors his
claim on Section 34 of Rule 138 of the Rules of Court3 that
a non-lawyer may appear before any court and conduct his
litigation personally.
During the pre-trial, Judge Priscilla Mijares required
the petitioner to secure a written permission from the
Court Administrator before he could be allowed to appear
as counsel for himself, a party-litigant. Atty. Stanley
Cabrera, counsel for Benjamin Mina, Jr., filed a Motion to
Dismiss instead of a pre-trial brief to which petitioner Cruz
vehemently objected alleging that a Motion to Dismiss is
not allowed after the Answer had been filed. Judge Mijares
then remarked, Hay naku, masama yung marunong pa sa
Huwes. Ok? and proceeded to hear the pending Motion to
Dismiss and calendared the next hearing on May 2, 2002.
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 34-35.
2 Id., at pp. 43-45.
3 Section 31-Rule 138.By whom litigation conducted.In the court

of justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with
the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with
the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his
litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be
either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar.
505

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

505

Cruz vs. Mijares

On March 6, 2002, petitioner Cruz filed a Manifestation
and Motion to Inhibit,4 praying for the voluntary inhibition
of Judge Mijares. The Motion alleged that expected
partiality on the part of the respondent judge in the
conduct of the trial could be inferred from the
contumacious remarks of Judge Mijares during the pretrial. It asserts that the judge, in uttering an uncalled for
remark, reflects a negative frame of mind, which engenders
the belief that justice will not be served.5
In an Order6 dated April 19, 2002, Judge Mijares denied
the motion for inhibition stating that throwing tenuous
allegations of partiality based on the said remark is not
enough to warrant her voluntary inhibition, considering
that it was said even prior to the start of pre-trial.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration7 of the said
order.
On May 10, 2002, Judge Mijares denied the motion with
finality.8 In the same Order, the trial court held that for the
failure of petitioner Cruz to submit the promised document
and jurisprudence, and for his failure to satisfy the
requirements or conditions under Rule 138-A of the Rules
of Court, his appearance was denied.
In a motion for reconsideration,9 petitioner reiterated
that the basis of his appearance was not Rule 138-A, but
Section 34 of Rule 138. He contended that the two Rules
were distinct and are applicable to different circumstances,
but the respondent judge denied the same, still invoking
Rule 138-A, in an Order10 dated July 31, 2002.
_______________
4 Manifestation and Motion to Inhibit, Rollo, pp. 29-30.
5 Rollo, p. 30.
6 Id., at p. 31.

7 Annex D of the Petition, id., at pp. 32-33.

8 Rollo, pp. 34-35.
9 Annex F of the Petition, id., at pp. 36-42.
10 Annex G of the Petition, id., at pp. 43-45.
506

506

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Mijares

On August 16, 2002, the petitioner directly filed with

this Court, the instant petition and assigns the following
errors:
I.
THE RESPONDENT REGIONAL TRIAL COURT GRAVELY
ERRED AND ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DENIED
THE APPEARANCE OF THE PETITIONER, FOR AND IN THE
LATTERS BEHALF, IN CIVIL CASE NO. 01-0401 [sic]
CONTRARY TO RULE 138, SECTION 34 OF THE RULES OF
COURT, PROVIDING FOR THE APPEARANCE OF NONLAWYERS AS A PARTY LITIGANT;
II.
THE RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ERRED AND ABUSED
ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT DID NOT VOLUNTARILY INHIBIT
DESPITE THE ADVENT OF JURISPRUDENCE [sic] THAT SUCH
AN INHIBITION IS PROPER TO PRESERVE THE PEOPLES
FAITH AND CONFIDENCE TO THE COURTS.

The core issues raised before the Court are: (1) whether
the extraordinary writs of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Court may
issue; and (2) whether the respondent court acted with
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction when it denied the appearance of the petitioner
as party litigant and when the judge refused to inhibit
herself from trying the case.
This Courts jurisdiction to issue writs of certiorari,
prohibition, mandamus and injunction is not exclusive; it
has concurrent jurisdiction with the RTCs and the Court of
Appeals. This concurrence of jurisdiction is not, however, to
be taken as an absolute, unrestrained freedom to choose
the court where the application therefor will be directed.11
A becoming regard of the judicial hierarchy most certainly
indicates that petitions for the issuance of extraordinary

writs against the

_______________
11 People v. Cuaresma, G.R. No. 67787, April 18, 1989, 172 SCRA 415,
423-424.
507

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

507

Cruz vs. Mijares

RTCs should be filed with the Court of Appeals.12 The
hierarchy of courts is determinative of the appropriate
forum for petitions for the extraordinary writs; and only in
exceptional cases and for compelling reasons, or if
warranted by the nature of the issues reviewed, may this
Court take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.13
Considering, however, that this case involves the
interpretation of Section 34, Rule 138 and Rule 138-A of
the Rules of Court, the Court takes cognizance of herein
petition. Nonetheless, the petitioner is cautioned not to
continue his practice of filing directly before this Court
petitions under Rule 65 when the issue raised can be
resolved with dispatch by the Court of Appeals. We will not
tolerate litigants who make a mockery of the judicial
hierarchy as it necessarily delays more important concerns
before us.
In resolving the second issue, a comparative reading of
Rule 138, Section 34 and Rule 138-A is necessary.
Rule 138-A, or the Law Student Practice Rule, provides:
RULE138-A
LAW STUDENT PRACTICE RULE
Section1.Conditions for Student Practice.A law student
who has successfully completed his 3rd year of the regular four-year
prescribed law curriculum and is enrolled in a recognized law
schools clinical legal education program approved by the
Supreme Court, may appear without compensation in any civil,
criminal or administrative case before any trial court, tribunal,
board or officer, to represent indigent clients accepted by the legal
clinic of the law school.
_______________

12 Liga ng mga Barangay National v. City Mayor of Manila, 465 Phil. 529,
543; 420 SCRA 562, 572 (2004).
13 Cruz v. Mina, G.R. No. 154207, April 27, 2007, 522 SCRA 382, 386;
United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858, June 28, 2005, 461 SCRA
574, 593; Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Abrogar, 457 Phil. 189, 202; 410 SCRA
148, 157 (2003).
508

508

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Mijares

Sec.2.Appearance.The appearance of the law student

authorized by this rule, shall be under the direct supervision
and control of a member of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines duly accredited by the law school. Any and all
pleadings, motions, briefs, memoranda or other papers to be filed,
must be signed by the supervising attorney for and in behalf of the
legal clinic.

The respondent court held that the petitioner could not

appear for himself and on his behalf because of his failure
to comply with Rule 138-A. In denying petitioners
appearance, the court a quo tersely finds refuge in the fact
that, on December 18, 1986, this Court issued Circular No.
19, which eventually became Rule 138-A, and the failure of
Cruz to prove on record that he is enrolled in a recognized
schools clinical legal education program and is under
supervision of an attorney duly accredited by the law
school.
However, the petitioner insisted that the basis of his
appearance was Section 34 of Rule 138, which provides:
Sec.34.By whom litigation is conducted.In the court of a
justice of the peace, a party may conduct his litigation in person,
with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that
purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a
party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an
attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly
authorized member of the bar.

and is a rule distinct from Rule 138-A.

From the clear language of this provision of the Rules, it
will have to be conceded that the contention of the
petitioner has merit. It recognizes the right of an individual
to represent himself in any case to which he is a party. The

Rules state that a party may conduct his litigation

personally or with the aid of an attorney, and that his
appearance must either be personal or by a duly authorized
member of the Bar. The individual litigant may personally
do everything in the course of proceedings from
commencement to the termination of the
509

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

509

Cruz vs. Mijares

litigation.14 Considering that a party personally conducting
his litigation is restricted to the same rules of evidence and
procedure as those qualified to practice law,15 petitioner,
not being a lawyer himself, runs the risk of falling into the
snares and hazards of his own ignorance. Therefore, Cruz
as plaintiff, at his own instance, can personally conduct the
litigation of Civil Case No. 01-0410. He would then be
acting not as a counsel or lawyer, but as a party exercising
his right to represent himself.
The trial court must have been misled by the fact that
the petitioner is a law student and must, therefore, be
subject to the conditions of the Law Student Practice Rule.
It erred in applying Rule 138-A, when the basis of the
petitioners claim is Section 34 of Rule 138. The former rule
provides for conditions when a law student may appear in
courts, while the latter rule allows the appearance of a nonlawyer as a party representing himself.
The conclusion of the trial court that Rule 138-A
superseded Rule 138 by virtue of Circular No. 19 is
misplaced. The Court never intended to repeal Rule 138
when it released the guidelines for limited law student
practice. In fact, it was intended as an addendum to the
instances when a non-lawyer may appear in courts and was
incorporated to the Rules of Court through Rule 138-A.
It may be relevant to recall that, in respect to the
constitutional right of an accused to be heard by himself
and counsel,16 this Court has held that during the trial, the
right to counsel cannot be waived.17 The rationale for this
ruling was articulated in People v. Holgado,18 where we
declared that even the
_______________

14 Santos v. Lacurom, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1823, August 28, 2006, 499

SCRA 639, 648-649.
15 Maderada v. Mediodea, 459 Phil. 701, 716-717; 413 SCRA 313, 324
(2003).
16 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14(2).
17 Flores v. Ruiz, 179 Phil. 351, 355; 90 SCRA 428, 432 (1979).
18 86 Phil. 752 (1950).
510

510

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cruz vs. Mijares

most intelligent or educated man may have no skill in the

science of law, particularly in the rules of procedure, and
without counsel, he may be convicted not because he is
guilty but because he does not know how to establish his
innocence.
The case at bar involves a civil case, with the petitioner
as plaintiff therein. The solicitous concern that the
Constitution accords the accused in a criminal prosecution
obviously does not obtain in a civil case. Thus, a party
litigant in a civil case, who insists that he can, without a
lawyers assistance, effectively undertake the successful
pursuit of his claim, may be given the chance to do so. In
this case, petitioner alleges that he is a law student and
impliedly asserts that he has the competence to litigate the
case himself. Evidently, he is aware of the perils incident to
this decision.
In addition, it was subsequently clarified in Bar Matter
730, that by virtue of Section 34, Rule 138, a law student
may appear as an agent or a friend of a party litigant,
without need of the supervision of a lawyer, before inferior
courts. Here, we have a law student who, as party litigant,
wishes to represent himself in court. We should grant his
wish.
Additionally, however, petitioner contends that the
respondent judge committed manifest bias and partiality
by ruling that there is no valid ground for her voluntary
inhibition despite her alleged negative demeanor during
the pre-trial when she said: Hay naku, masama yung
marunong pa sa Huwes. Ok? Petitioner avers that by
denying his motion, the respondent judge already
manifested conduct indicative of arbitrariness and
prejudice, causing petitioners and his co-plaintiff s loss of

faith and confidence in the respondents impartiality.

We do not agree.
It must be noted that because of this incident, the
petitioner filed an administrative case19 against the
respondent
_______________
19 Ferdinand Cruz v. Judge Priscilla Mijares, OCA IPI No. 02-1452RTJ.
511

VOL. 564, SEPTEMBER 11, 2008

511

Cruz vs. Mijares

for violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which we
dismissed for lack of merit on September 15, 2002. We now
adopt the Courts findings of fact in the administrative case
and rule that there was no grave abuse of discretion on the
part of Judge Mijares when she did not inhibit herself from
the trial of the case.
In a Motion for Inhibition, the movant must prove the
ground for bias and prejudice by clear and convincing
evidence to disqualify a judge from participating in a
particular trial,20 as voluntary inhibition is primarily a
matter of conscience and addressed to the sound discretion
of the judge. The decision on whether she should inhibit
herself must be based on her rational and logical
assessment of the circumstances prevailing in the case
before her.21 Absent clear and convincing proof of grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the judge, this Court will
rule in favor of the presumption that official duty has been
regularly performed.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
The assailed Resolution and Order of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 108, Pasay City are MODIFIED. Regional
Trial Court, Branch 108, Pasay City is DIRECTED to
ADMIT the Entry of Appearance of petitioner in Civil Case
No. 01-0410 as a party litigant.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
Tinga,** Chico-Nazario (Actg. Chairperson), Velasco,
Jr.** and Reyes, JJ., concur.

_______________
20 People v. Ong, G.R. Nos. 162130-39, May 5, 2006, 489 SCRA 679,
688.
21 Abrajano v. Heirs of Augusto F. Salas, Jr., G.R. No. 158895,
February 16, 2006, 482 SCRA 476, 487.
** Designated additional members in lieu of Associate Justices
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago and Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez per Special
Order No. 517 dated August 27, 2008.

Copyright 2016 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.